In addition, you think topix does not know what you publish. Attacks on me will not delete or erase what you are and what you do. You should stop making an ASSumption of your---self before you know the facts. Do contact topix to satisfy your accusations of the reprint BS your posting of what I said. You are a dumbASSumption of your---self again.

<quoted text>Yes, a cylinder, a pie pan or an erlenmeyer flask will all display different levels of rise. I also understand that atmospheric rise in temperature does not readily conduct heat to the depths of the basins - or even to beneath the thermocline. That is of little consequence to the discussion.PRECISELY which experts do you reference? Those who you seek out in support of your foregone conclusions? You might well consider changing your fields of comment to theology.http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/

Actually the thermocline has much to do when talking about thermal expansion. And the slope also has much to do with those numbers that are in your factsheet. Which had some errors. For example, they stated that the rate of rise is one to two millimeters a year when the CU has it at 3.2 mm a year. They also mention some of their predictions are based on shore lines from past interglacierals and they missed the fact that the land has risen since then.

The numbers for the Greenland Ice sheet was pulled from the IPCC AR4 which were later discovered to be so far off that within three years it had departed from the model. The simple fact that if Greenland Ice sheet was to melt right this second the resulting tidal wave might reach six meters in NYC but the resulting water level would only be a millimeter or two higher.

Or to put it this way. The entire Greenland Ice Sheet would only double the rate of rise for one year if it melted in one year. If you add thermo expansion into the equasion it would not even do that for the first year since that much cold water would if anything cause the reverse of thermal expansion for that year.

As for the subject of theology, have you considered druidism. After all, your beliefs would fit well into that belief system.

"Melting of the current Greenland ice sheet would result in a sea-level rise of about 6.5 meters; melting of the West Antarctic ice sheet would result in a sea-level rise of about 8 meters (table 1). The West Antarctic ice sheet is especially vulnerable, because much of it is grounded below sea level.

Small changes in global sea level or a rise in ocean temperatures could cause a breakup of the two buttressing ice shelves (Ronne/Filchner and Ross). The resulting surge of the West Antarctic ice sheet would lead to a rapid rise in global sea level. Reduction of the West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets similar to past reductions would cause sea level to rise 10 or more meters. A sea-level rise of 10 meters would flood about 25 percent of the U.S. population, with the major impact being mostly on the people and infrastructures in the Gulf and East Coast States (fig. 3). "

Gee ChromiuMAn quotes USGS"Melting of the current Greenland ice sheet would result in a sea-level rise of about 6.5 meters; melting of the West Antarctic ice sheet would result in a sea-level rise of about 8 meters (table 1). The West Antarctic ice sheet is especially vulnerable, because much of it is grounded below sea level.Small changes in global sea level or a rise in ocean temperatures could cause a breakup of the two buttressing ice shelves (Ronne/Filchner and Ross). The resulting surge of the West Antarctic ice sheet would lead to a rapid rise in global sea level. Reduction of the West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets similar to past reductions would cause sea level to rise 10 or more meters. A sea-level rise of 10 meters would flood about 25 percent of the U.S. population, with the major impact being mostly on the people and infrastructures in the Gulf and East Coast States (fig. 3). "http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/and Tina quotes... effectively Rush Limbaugh or the like. Right wingers don't need physics....

Based on the IPCC model which was discovered in error in 2009. The model left out shore line gradient and had the amount of water far higher than the volume of ice could contain. They also forgot that water expands when it freezes and ice contracts when it melts.

Or in other words, when you run the actual numbers the amount if rise is only a few millimeters and not the meters.

While it nice to see that you are looking for more sources you should also double check you sources. Just because the government posted it does not mean it is right. After all, those people are human as well.

<quoted text>Based on the IPCC model which was discovered in error in 2009. The model left out shore line gradient and had the amount of water far higher than the volume of ice could contain. They also forgot that water expands when it freezes and ice contracts when it melts.Or in other words, when you run the actual numbers the amount if rise is only a few millimeters and not the meters.While it nice to see that you are looking for more sources you should also double check you sources. Just because the government posted it does not mean it is right. After all, those people are human as well.

Missed the citation dear. Was that because your right wing rags weren't written by anyone with climatology expertise.

<quoted text>wallop10 gets walloped again and again yes another good day.

That's not what YOU admitted to recently:

Previous post

PHD wrote:

<quoted text>Yes the wallop10 is accurate with its scientific science fiction and careful with its science. The issue with the wallpo10 is when you disagree with its scientific science fiction and science it goes on a rant calling name and gives out peanuts. So with that said anything posted by the wallp10 true or untrue becomes BS.

<quoted text>That's not what YOU admitted to recently:Previous post<quoted text>http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...From you, that's admission my science IS clear.Your science is nonexistant. Straighten up and I'll quit voting you peanuts and calling you a troll.

Your arrogance always gets you to stick that proverbial foot in your mouth. I don't lose sleep or wake up just to get your approval. There are far more intelligent people in my circle of friends then you could achieve in a life time.

<quoted text>Your arrogance always gets you to stick that proverbial foot in your mouth. I don't lose sleep or wake up just to get your approval. There are far more intelligent people in my circle of friends then you could achieve in a life time.

Tsk Tsk. You admitted you don't have a degree now either, remember.

PHD wrote:

<quoted text>Yes itís true I don't have a degree like you do. I will make an effort to learn BS so I could be just like you. Then I could post cut and paste useless scientific science fiction babble. Can you tell me what school you attended so I can be just like you?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.